afishinado wrote:When does private land have "a general public invitation? You are a guest of the landowner when you park/fish on private land, and to me, a spot that not posted is not a general public invitation, it's a privilege granted by the landowner that can be revoked at any time if it becomes a PITA.

Most private lands I fish are not posted and obviously used by the public, so I consider that the landowner, knowing of public use and deciding not to post is of the very common generous sort of streamside landowner who does not mind if members of the public use the land to access or wade. A large portion of Spring Creek, for instance, is private, but is considered open to the public. No one hesitates to post about these locations, nor is there ever a complaint about it when it happens.

I recognize that the failure to post land against trespass does not constitute permission in a legal sense, but in the circumstances, one can assume there is a general invitation and I often do, as I suspect you and many others do as well.

On the consideration point being made by Jay, while revealing a location that happens to be someone's guarded secret may be inconsiderate toward that person or persons, revealing the available water to others who were unaware of it is very considerate as you have offered those other anglers a chance to fish new and exciting water.

In my opinion, the balance is struck on each individual's own perception of the alleged harm versus the alleged benefit. When it is YOUR secret place, you will tend to see the revelation as generally inconsiderate. It is a natural reaction, but not necessarily rational, unless you think that NO stream should ever be discussed publicly.

If I had to guess, there are about 10% of the complainers who think no stream should be posted about and the other 90% of the complainers only think their special waters should be kept under wraps.

Posted on: 2010/6/18 12:51

_________________ "Only nature is good, only the natural is human,..."

Here, however, we are experiencing the consequences of the doctrine, lately preached from all the rooftops, that the state is the highest goal of mankind....

afishinado wrote:When does private land have "a general public invitation? You are a guest of the landowner when you park/fish on private land, and to me, a spot that not posted is not a general public invitation, it's a privilege granted by the landowner that can be revoked at any time if it becomes a PITA.

Most private lands I fish are not posted and obviously used by the public, so I consider that the landowner, knowing of public use and deciding not to post is of the very common generous sort of streamside landowner who does not mind if members of the public use the land to access or wade. A large portion of Spring Creek, for instance, is private, but is considered open to the public. No one hesitqates to post these locations, nor is there ever a complaint about it when it happens.

I recognize that the failure to post does not constitute permission in a legal sense, but in the circumstances, one can assume there is a general invitation and I often do, as I suspect you and many others do as well.

In the case of spring creek, the stream will get traffic regardless of internet posts.

In the case of a small, relatively lightly fished stream, posting the name and location would certainly increase traffic. Just look at threads that mention "under the radar" streams. Numerous people comment that they will have to check it out.

Regardless of the legal meaning of the landowner's keeping it open... they very well could because it poses them no inconvenience. I think it's the duty of the fisherman that utilize the area to prevent (or at least avoid fostering) spikes in traffic, as a simple courtesy to the landowner. For the same reasons, anglers should limit their use of the area. If a spike in traffic were to occur, I am sure certain landowners would reconsider. I know I would. For the same reasons, I don't post about landowners that have granted me access. I'd happily tell someone in a more private setting, but it's not for public consumption. This really seems like common sense/courtesy to me.

I really don't see why that's so hard to understand. This is one case where taking the conservative route just seems obvious.

If I'm throwing a party, and accepting all guests, anyone is allowed to show up. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be pissed if someone advertised it on the internet. I allowed open access under the assumption that a relatively small group would show. I am certain that this is often the case with landowners on unstocked trout streams.

ah Sallymander...i dont fish that stream nearly as much as you think...streams chock full of 10 inch fish dont do much...(niether do streams with pellet fed atrocities) so we most likely wont bump into each other on the water anytime soon alas.. however it is the principle...

half the things that spew from your keyboard make no sense? why would you even try and pose that question to J? you're just trying to get him to say what you want so you can follow up with your big winning statement at the end... this isnt a cross examination with a half asleep jury...please try and do better...

JackM wrote:Well, then, there you have the solution: when someone outs your secret stream, go find a new one and leave your special water to all the new folks to enjoy. End of discussion, right?

Assuming the stream only gained one more regular angler, then yes. Assuming it gained more, I don't get your point.

And regardless, I still have the right to be annoyed by losing the ability to fish the stream without jeopardizing open access, due to the inconsiderate need to publicly post the location.

And besides, a simple spike in traffic over a few week period* may be enough to annoy the landowner to the extent of posting his property. As I said, I can guarantee that many landowners allow access under the assumption that the location will not be publicly advertised.

*which I think you may have agreed is possible, if not probable... but I do not remember.